Legislature(2015 - 2016)GRUENBERG 120
03/21/2016 12:30 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB205 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 205 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 310 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 21, 2016
1:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Chair
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Matt Claman
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Kurt Olson (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 205
"An Act relating to conditions of release; relating to community
work service; relating to credit toward a sentence of
imprisonment for certain persons under electronic monitoring;
relating to the restoration under certain circumstances of an
administratively revoked driver's license, privilege to drive,
or privilege to obtain a license; allowing a reduction of
penalties for offenders successfully completing court- ordered
treatment programs for persons convicted of driving under the
influence; relating to termination of a revocation of a driver's
license; relating to restoration of a driver's license; relating
to credits toward a sentence of imprisonment, to good time
deductions, and to providing for earned good time deductions for
prisoners; relating to early termination of probation and
reduction of probation for good conduct; relating to the rights
of crime victims; relating to the disqualification of persons
convicted of certain felony drug offenses from participation in
the food stamp and temporary assistance programs; relating to
probation; relating to mitigating factors; relating to treatment
programs for prisoners; relating to the duties of the
commissioner of corrections; amending Rule 32, Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 310
"An Act relating to the duties of the Department of Health and
Social Services; relating to child-in-need-of-aid proceedings;
relating to child protection; and amending Rules 6(a), 6(b)(2)
and (3), 10(c)(2) and (3), 10(e)(2), 10.1(a)(1) and (2),
15(f)(2), 17(c), 17(d)(2), 17.1(b), 17.1(d)(3), 17.2(a),
17.2(e), 17.2(f), 18(c), and 19.1(c), Alaska Child in Need of
Aid Rules of Procedure, and repealing Rules 17.1(a), 17.1(c),
and 17.1(d)(2), Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rules of Procedure."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 205
SHORT TITLE: CRIMINAL LAW/PROCEDURE; DRIV LIC; PUB AID
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MILLETT
04/17/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/17/15 (H) JUD, FIN
03/11/16 (H) JUD AT 12:30 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/11/16 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/12/16 (H) JUD AT 2:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/12/16 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/14/16 (H) JUD AT 12:30 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/14/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/16 (H) MINUTE (JUD)
03/16/16 (H) JUD AT 12:30 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/16/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/16/16 (H) MINUTE (JUD)
03/18/16 (H) JUD AT 12:30 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/18/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/16 (H) MINUTE (JUD)
03/21/16 (H) JUD AT 12:30 AM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
GRACE ABBOTT, Staff
Representative Charisse Millett
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205, presented
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission community supervision
recommendations.
DEAN WILLIAMS, Commissioner Designee
Department of Corrections
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205, testified and
answered questions.
CARRIE BELDEN, Director
Division of Probation and Parole
Department of Corrections
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205, answered
questions.
ALYSA WOODEN, Program Coordinator
Alcohol Safety Action Program
Division of Behavioral Health
Department of Health & Social Services
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205, answered
questions.
TRACEY WOLLENBERG, Deputy Director
Appellate Division
Central Office
Public Defender Agency (PDA)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205, answered
questions.
LAURA BROOKS, Health Care Administrator
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Corrections
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:06:11 PM
CHAIR GABRIELLE LEDOUX called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:06 p.m. Representatives Keller,
Lynn, Claman, LeDoux were present at the call to order.
Representatives Millett and Kreiss-Tomkins arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 205-CRIMINAL LAW/PROCEDURE; DRIV LIC; PUB AID
1:06:49 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 205, "An Act relating to conditions of release;
relating to community work service; relating to credit toward a
sentence of imprisonment for certain persons under electronic
monitoring; relating to the restoration under certain
circumstances of an administratively revoked driver's license,
privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a license; allowing a
reduction of penalties for offenders successfully completing
court- ordered treatment programs for persons convicted of
driving under the influence; relating to termination of a
revocation of a driver's license; relating to restoration of a
driver's license; relating to credits toward a sentence of
imprisonment, to good time deductions, and to providing for
earned good time deductions for prisoners; relating to early
termination of probation and reduction of probation for good
conduct; relating to the rights of crime victims; relating to
the disqualification of persons convicted of certain felony drug
offenses from participation in the food stamp and temporary
assistance programs; relating to probation; relating to
mitigating factors; relating to treatment programs for
prisoners; relating to the duties of the commissioner of
corrections; amending Rule 32, Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the House Judiciary Standing Committee was CSHB 205,
labeled 29-LS0896\H, adopted 3/14/16.]
1:07:37 PM
GRACE ABBOTT, Staff, Representative Charisse Millett, Alaska
State Legislature, said that she would speak to recommendations
12 through 18, focusing on resources for those who pose the
greatest danger and would benefit from the greatest level of
correction to incentivize and create good behavior. She turned
to slides 2-6, "Graduated Sanctions and Incentives,
Recommendation Twelve," and advised that the commission
recommended the legislature create a system of graduated
sanctions and incentives when considering people who are
supervised in communities, such as people on probation or
parole. While Alaska's recidivism rate has somewhat reduced
over the past decade, almost two-thirds of prisoners released
from prison return to prison within three years. She advised
that a strategy consistently discussed was the use of swift,
certain, and proportional sanctions in responding to violations
of supervision geared toward maximizing resources to create
sanctions and incentives.
1:09:50 PM
MS. ABBOTT noted that Recommendation 12 focuses on responding to
technical violations of supervision, such as violations of
probation and parole that do not rise to the level of new
criminal conduct. For example, she explained, failing a drug
test, missing a meeting with a probation officer, or something
that does not constitute new criminal behavior but is in
violation of the conditions of parole.
1:10:22 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that failing to pass a drug test would
indicate a new crime had been committed.
MS. ABBOTT responded that failing a drug test or a dirty UA
would not rise to the level of a new crime. While it does
indicate criminal activity, it is determined that once a drug is
in a person's system and the test is a UA, it does not count as
possession as "it is then out of your control." She explained
that a person having a drug in their pocket is different than in
their blood stream.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN suggested that positive UAs are
circumstantial evidence that someone was violating the law at
some point in the recent past.
1:11:29 PM
MS. ABBOTT turned to slide 3, "Sections Addressed:" which
included Sections 72, 96, 98, and 134. She offered the
following: Sec. 72 requires probationers to comply with their
graduated sanctions; Sec. 96 directs the commissioner of the
Department of Corrections (DOC) to establish an administrative
sanction and incentive program; and Sec 98 defines
administrative sanctions and incentives. She reiterated that
two-thirds of released offenders return to prison within three
years, and the graph on slide 4 does not distinguish between new
crimes and people violating conditions of their release, but it
is known that a significant portion are violating the conditions
of their release.
MS. ABBOTT turned to slide 5, "Swift, Certain, and Proportional
Sanctions Effective at Changing Offender Behavior," and noted
that these sanctions are effective, not only as a supervision
tool, but truly a way to change offender behavior. Research
shows that responding to violations quickly and proportionally
is the most effective way to change offender behavior. For
instance Lieutenant Sell had described the scenario of asking a
child to clean their room and they refuse the punishment is not
that in six months they could be punished, but rather telling
them they are immediately grounded and forced to clean their
room which would be a proportional response to the offense
committed. Slide 6 refers to the implementation of graduated
sanctions from the less serious, such as increased drug testing
or curfews, to the more serious of electronic monitoring or
actual prison time, should apply according to the offense and
the frequency of the offense. The research indicated that
communicating this threat of sanctions to the offender upon
release is a crucial portion of this recommendation so people
have a real understanding of what their actions could lead to.
The recommendation includes streamlining procedures to allow the
probation officer to respond swiftly to the violation is also
critical, she added. The recommendation authorizes the
Department of Corrections (DOC) to create a matrix to determine
swift, certain, and proportional responses, and to follow the
matrix in levying those responses.
1:15:07 PM
MS. ABBOTT turned to slides 7-11, "Cap Technical Violation
Stays, Recommendation Thirteen," and advised that the commission
discussed capping the amount of prison time used for violation
of their supervision requirements, which is discussed in
numerous sections of the bill as indicated on slide 8. She said
the meat of it is in Sec. 74, especially where it limits the
maximum sentence for technical violations of probation. Slide
9, "Petitions to Revoke Take a Month to Resolve," which is when
a probation officer determines that a violation of supervision
occurred and the offender should either be punished for the
violation, but more often than not the Petition to Revoke would
put them back in prison. Offenders spend an average of one
month behind bars before even being sentenced for their
technical violation of supervision; therefore, before the
determination is made regarding the seriousness of the violation
or what sentence should be levied, the offenders have already
taken up prison beds. Once the individual is sentenced for the
technical violation nearly one-half of revocations are staying
longer than one month, and many stay longer than six months
behind bars, she explained. The data pointing to a substantial
amount of people taking up prison beds when merely a technical
violation occurred directed the commission to review capping the
incarceration time for technical violations of supervision. She
remarked that this plays into the swift, certain, and
proportional response. The goal in the recommendation is that
upon the first violation wherein the supervisor has determined
it warrants being taken to the level of a sentence, supervision
would be revoked for up to 3 days. She added that the second
revocation would be up to 5 days, third revocation up to 10
days, and if the patterns of behavior do not improve the court
has the discretion to sentence up to the remaining amount of
their prison sentence, up to the rest of their suspended time.
She further added there would be a separate category of
revocation for absconding from their supervision, up to 30 days.
1:18:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked how many Petitions [to Revoke] are
currently on the court's docket.
MS. ABBOTT deferred to experts from the Department of
Corrections.
1:18:46 PM
MS. ABBOTT turned to slides 12-15, "Earned Compliance Credits,
Recommendation Fourteen" ...
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN interjected that [slide 9] shows that
Petition to Revoke takes a month to resolve, and [slide 10]
indicates that once sentenced nearly half of revocations are
staying more than one month, and asked for the distinction
between slides 10 and 11, and the definition of an unsentenced
supervision violation.
MS. ABBOTT explained that an unsentenced supervision violator
would have possibly failed their drug test, missed a meeting
with their probation officer, now has their Petition to Revoke,
and is in prison for the purposes of being sentenced. For
example, when comparing it to the larger judicial process this
would be their pretrial, unsentenced supervision violators who
have offended and have reasons to have their release revoked but
have yet to have the sentence levied.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN suggested Ms. Abbott obtain a life line
because a person is only on probation after they've been
sentenced except in rare circumstances.
MS. ABBOTT rephrased her response and stated that the sentence
does not refer to the actual crime, the sentence refers to the
reaction to the violation of their supervision. Therefore, when
discussing changing the sentence for violation, it refers to the
way in which the person violated their parole and it is just
within the parole or probation process. She explained that it
is a punishment for the person breaking the terms of their
supervision.
1:21:10 PM
MS. ABBOTT turned to slides 12-15, "Earned Compliance Credits,
Recommendation Fourteen," and is found in Secs. 70, 73, 97, 132,
and 133 of the bill. She explained that the meat is found in
Sec. 97, allowing probation officer to grant earned compliance
credits. She noted that an interesting data research finding of
the commission was that in the case of changing offender
behavior, the carrot can work better than the stick, such that
rewards can be more effective than sanctions. Specifically, in
terms of community supervision the data shows that states
achieved higher successful supervision rates when the rewards
outnumber sanctions. For example, when supervision programs
provide incentives for meeting case specific goals, such as
rewarding a drug addicted offender for participating in out-
patient drug treatment programs, thereby, enhancing their
motivation. The recommendation is to establish an earned
compliance policy granting probationers and parolees one month
credit toward their supervision term for each month they are in
full compliance with the conditions of their supervision. She
explained that if someone has an 18-month supervision term, and
they performed one month of perfect behavior one month would be
shaved off on the backend. Data has shown that it encourages
behavior in the frontend and it also allows probation and parole
officers to focus their supervision most effectively. In the
event a person has shown that they are positively impacted by
the conditions of their release, abiding by their conditions,
and it appears their behavior is shifting and they are
reintegrating themselves into their community, then at the
backend of their release the supervision resources can be
focused on people who need it more.
1:23:57 PM
MS ABBOTT turned to slides 16-22, "Maximum Probation Terms &
Earned Discharge, Recommendation Fifteen," and advised that
Secs. 68, 69, 71, 125, are addressed in the bill. She added
that the meat is located in Secs. 69 and 71, and explained that
Sec. 69 limits probation for felonies and misdemeanors, and Sec.
71 encourages early discharge if an offender is in compliance,
exhibits good behavior, and it also ensures victim notification.
As a side note, she offered, victim notification is emphasized
in all of the recommendations because during the probation and
parole process it is crucial that victims are aware of time
changes, parole changes, and release decisions. A portion of
the research showed that the average length of stay on community
supervision, parole or probation, has risen approximately 13
percent over the last decade. The commission reviewed reducing
reporting requirement for people on probation or parole, and
found that a large population of low risk supervisees are eating
up officer's time and resources that could be spent on higher
risk offenders, people more likely to fail during this community
supervision process.
1:25:35 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to Sec. 69, limiting the number of
probations or felonies, and noted that the testimony on 3/18/16
discussed streamlining the parole and probation process.
MS. ABBOTT responded that the discussion on 3/18/16 dealt with
the application process to receive a hearing and receive
assistance to complete the application process. She offered
that while a person is incarcerated the data showed that many
people due to a myriad of factors were not applying to have the
opportunity to be on community supervision. Whereas, Sec. 69
deals with the time in which they would be on community
supervision, and relates to the best use of the state's
resources due to people being more likely to fail at the
beginning of their release period.
CHAIR LEDOUX stated that she wanted the record to be quite clear
that this section does not read that the legislature will limit
the possibility of probation for felonies and misdemeanors i.e.,
making people stay there longer. She expressed that this reads
that once a person is out of jail the time would be limited that
they are on probation.
MS. ABBOTT responded absolutely correct.
1:27:22 PM
MS. ABBOTT reiterated that with the average length of stay on
community supervision rising it takes up more of the
supervisor's time, causes paperwork, uses resources, and that it
is an expensive time consuming process. As an individual's
terms come to an end on supervision their outcomes are better
and they are less likely to fail or violate conditions of their
release toward the end of their release period than they are at
the beginning. She referred to slide 19, and advised that 62
percent of people released fail during the first zero to three
months, which is the period people are still getting on their
feet, they do not necessarily have as much community support,
and they may not have some of the reentry tools that will be
discussed later today. At the end of the day they may not have
yet re-acclimated to being outside of prison so this is truly
the period where people need the most assistance and
supervision.
1:28:35 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed to slide 19 and remarked that she found it
interesting that at 13 to 24 months it shows three percent, yet
at 25 to 36 months it shows eight percent. She asked why that
might be.
MS. ABBOTT advised she could not speak to the differentiation,
and that while both are low, Chair LeDoux is correct that the
one year to two year mark seems to have better outcomes. She
said she will ask why it wasn't a steady slope down.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether research found a causal relationship
to diminishing returns, and not only diminishing returns but
that it is actually counterproductive after a certain amount of
time.
MS. ABBOTT stated that she will dig into it.
1:29:43 PM
MS. ABBOTT pointed out that the data collected from the
Department of Corrections also shows that a large portion of the
supervision population are fairly low-risk. Clearly, she said,
that is the goal and when people are released and put on
community supervision the hope is that they are fairly low risk,
but even amongst that population there is still a large portion
that can be differentiated as extremely low-risk.
1:30:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked what LSI-R Classifications
means.
MS. ABBOTT responded that she will get the definition for him.
1:30:37 PM
MS. ABBOTT offered that the research led to the conclusion that
the most effective use of the state's resources is to frontload
and focus on the beginning of a person's probation period, or
community supervision period, and then focus those supervision
resources on those most likely to fail. Research shows that
supervision resources provide the greatest public safety returns
when focused on those most likely to reoffend, such as high-risk
offenders and those recently released from prison. The elements
of a successful system include identifying offenders who warrant
enhanced supervision and those who do not, including reducing
reporting requirements for those who are succeeding; and
additionally deterring future crime and technical violations by
changing offender behavior in the first few days, weeks, and
months after release as opposed to a longer term approach to
behavior changing.
1:31:38 PM
MS. ABBOTT related that this resulted in the recommendation
which is to reduce the maximum lengths for probation terms and
to standardize early discharge. She said the first part of that
recommendation includes a cap on the maximum probation terms at
one year for misdemeanor offenders who are not DUI or DV assault
misdemeanor offenders; two years for the second DUI and DV
assault misdemeanor offenders; three years for felony offenders
who are not felony sex offenders or unclassified felony
offenders; and five years for felony sex offenders and
unclassified felony offenders in the case that community
supervision is part of their sentence.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to [slide 19] concerning failure
is likely to happen within the first three months and requested
information that cross-references these timelines with the
length of probation or parole. He said he suspected that
research may show that once past 24 months there tends to be
people with more serious crimes, serving longer sentences, and
with longer periods of parole. He said, part of what is being
seen is that it is the less serious crimes and the less hardened
offenders are the ones that are completing and that bump might
be in part because of the character of the people that are
there. He reiterated his request for research.
MS. ABBOTT responded that the data is from the Department of
Corrections (DOC) and they will prepare a complete picture.
1:33:39 PM
MS. ABBOTT explained that an additional part of the
recommendation is to reduce the minimum time needed to serve on
probation or parole prior to being eligible for early discharge
to one year for certain offenders. She added that this does not
require that the inmate receive early discharge, it simply
allows them to be eligible for early discharge after one year.
Also, to require the DOC to recommend early termination of
probation or parole for any offender who has completed all
treatment programs and is in compliance with all supervision
conditions.
1:34:29 PM
MS. ABBOTT turned to slides 23-26, "Good Time on Electronic
Monitoring, Recommendation Sixteen," found in Sec. 135. She
advised that this is dissimilar to electronic monitoring
pretrial because it refers to those to whom electronic
monitoring is part of their sentence. The commission found that
while most offenders housed within an institution or CRC have
the opportunity to earn good time of up to one-third of their
sentence with positive behavior, and currently offenders on
electronic monitoring are barred from earning this incentive.
She described this recommendation as dealing with parity between
different sentencing options in that simply because someone is
housed in a CRC they should not receive a benefit that those on
electronic monitoring do not have. Anecdotally, she said, they
have heard that some inmates choose to stay within a CRC or an
institution because electronic monitoring does not offer good
time credit and; therefore, not reintegrate themselves into the
community or stay within a stable home. She noted that it is
more expensive for the state in a CRC or an institution even
when the authorities have determined that electronic monitoring
is a viable option for them, she explained.
MS. ABBOTT, in response to Chair LeDoux, explained that the
definition of CRC is a [Community] Residential Center.
1:36:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed to Sec. 135, AS 33.20.010(c),
[page 82, lines 1-4], which read:
(c) A prisoner may not be awarded a good time
deduction under (a) of this section for any period
spent in a treatment program or [,] in a private
residence. A prisoner may be awarded a good time
deduction under (a) of this section for any period
spent [, OR] while under electronic monitoring.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered that the intent is well placed but
there is potential for conflict in application by the courts
because on the one hand --- it may be a minor correction, but
the first sentence reads that a prisoner may not be awarded good
time for time spent, for example, in a private residence. The
next sentence reads that a prisoner may be awarded good time if
they are on electronic monitoring. He opined there may be an
inconsistency and it may be a minor drafting correction that
"our dearly departed Representative Gruenberg might be the best
person to have figured out how to merge the two."
CHAIR LEDOUX advised that when the committee begins discussing
the bill's provisions in detail, to come back to his concern.
MS. ABBOTT offered that any and all drafting concerns are marked
and sent to Legislative Legal and Research Services.
1:38:56 PM
MS. ABBOTT noted that the recommendation is to allow offenders
on electronic monitoring the option to qualify for good time
credits under the same conditions set forth for offenders within
institutions within the Department of Corrections, so the option
is now available.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked for the rationale for the notion that within
pretrial a defendant can receive time off for time spent in a
CRC which could conceivably eliminate a substantial portion of
the sentence, but after sentencing the defendant cannot receive
that same time off.
MS. ABBOTT explained that the distinction between electronic
monitoring good time offered pretrial and post-sentencing is
that last year a bill was passed allowing good time to be used
on electronic monitoring and applied toward the sentence.
Parity was not created between electronic monitoring offered
pretrial and post-sentencing. This change would offer that
because in a CRC both of those options are available under
current statute. The current distinction is between pretrial
electronic monitoring and post-sentencing electronic monitoring
and this change would create parity.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether last year's bill requires the
electronic monitoring in order to receive the credit or simply
being in the CRC allows a person to have the credit.
MS. ABBOTT responded that last year's legislation dealt
exclusively with electronic monitoring outside of halfway
houses, and she opined that within a halfway house both pretrial
and post-sentencing some amount of credit can be applied toward
the sentence. She deferred to the experts.
1:41:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed out that the statute passed last
year relates to electronic monitoring but there is a large
distinction between pre-sentence and post-sentence. There are
beds in treatment programs and halfway houses in which DOC can
determine that is where the person is going, and within the
industry they are referred to "correction's beds." For example,
he explained, DOC may have three beds reserved at Akeela House
for people coming out of prison and those people would receive
prison time credit for their time in the treatment program
designed to finish their sentence in the treatment programs and
then go into the community. He said those options are always
available to DOC and they count toward the sentence. The other
side of the equation is pretrial which is where a person
receives electronic monitoring, and this will make electronic
monitoring part of both pretrial and post-trial. Within
pretrial there's a whole other set of things involving the
Nygren [v. State, 658 P.2d 141 (1983)] case and other instances
where people come to court and basically say "I want to go in
this treatment program and get credit for it while I'm doing
this treatment before I actually get sentenced and have the
judge give me credit for it, which is something the judges can
do kind of separate from the question of electronic monitoring.
Although, electronic monitoring helps their case that they were
appropriately confined and get the credit."
1:43:21 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX said she is still confused, and asked the meaning
of "a prisoner may not be awarded a good time deduction under
(a) of this section for time spent in a treatment program," at
the top of page 82.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered that is partially the reason he
had questions about the section.
CHAIR LEDOUX said the committee would come back to this.
1:44:10 PM
MS. ABBOTT turned to slides 27-30, "Focus ASAP Resources,
Recommendation Seventeen," recommends that resources devoted to
the current alcohol safety program be focused on those for whom
it was originally statutorily intended. The sections addressed
are Secs. 149-151 in the bill, and deal with the regulations for
the Alaska Statewide Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP) and
allows for a pre-ASAP risk assessment as well as a risk
assessment as a result of participating in ASAP. The commission
found that increases in referrals to ASAP have limited the
program's current effectiveness taking into account their
current resources. The Alcohol Safety Action Program provides
critical screening and treatment referral services for thousands
of misdemeanor offenders who are referred to ASAP by the court.
However, the commission found that increases in the number of
referrals to ASAP have not necessarily correlated with increased
funding to the program, resulting in limited program
effectiveness. The recommendation also deals with the
conversation of reinvestment, and said that in FY 2015 ASAP
received approximately 7,200 referrals and only 57 percent of
which were actually for statutorily mandated referrals, such as
DUIs and minor consuming. The remaining 44 percent were
referrals that were not mandated by statute.
1:46:18 PM
MS. ABBOTT advised that this recommendation doesn't necessarily
make a policy call on whether or not those referrals were
justified, but rather recommends that the current ASAP resources
be focused on those for whom the program was originally set up
such as the DUI or minor consuming offenders. However, with
reinvestment opportunities this would allow expanding the
current services to include a validated assessment tool to
screen criminogenic risks and part of this has to deal with the
risk assessment previously discussed that occurs throughout the
commission's recommendations. The program would also perform
brief behavioral health screenings and provide referrals to
treatment programs designed to address the offender's individual
criminogenic needs. The Alcohol Safety Action Program is not a
"rehab" as it is a screening program and an accountability tool,
and this would allow the program to refer people to adequate
treatment programs.
1:47:28 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked who has been sent to ASAP that is not part of
the criminal justice system.
MS. ABBOTT responded that they would be part of the criminal
justice system, they just ...
CHAIR LEDOUX interjected that she means currently, and referred
to Ms. Abbott statement that it has been expanded beyond what it
was intended and asked who ends up with referrals there.
MS. ABBOTT explained that it can be a myriad of people with
various behavioral health or alcohol related crimes and, she
opined, Ms. Nancy Meade could speak to the question. She said
that the commission found that it involves sentences having to
do with alcohol; however, they are not DUI or minor consumption
charges. In some respects, ASAP has not been an effective tool
because it isn't rehabilitative in its nature as it is an
effective accountability measure for people accused of DUIs who
need to be accountable for not drinking, but are not necessarily
alcoholics. This would allow additional tools to recognize
those people who are alcoholics, who have an addiction of any
kind, or a behavioral health concern and it would allow them to
make recommendations for rehabilitative action.
MS. ABBOTT continued that this recommendation would additionally
require ASAP to provide increased case supervision for moderate
to high-risk offenders.
1:49:08 PM
MS. ABBOTT turned to slides 31-34, "CRC Resources,
Recommendation Eighteen," and said it deals with halfway house
and CRC resources, and is addressed within Sec. 140 of the bill.
The recommendation requires CRCs to provide treatment, reduce
mixing low and high-risk offenders, and adopting quality
assurance measures, including standards for assessing risk
levels. Currently, she noted, many people have horror stories
about halfway houses, specifically when it comes to mixing high
and low-risk offenders, and not providing treatment for
underlying issues. She expressed that this recommendation is
not making a judgement call on the state's current CRCs, and it
is not necessarily an audit so much as it a list of
recommendations as to how the state could improve that as a
resource for the future. The commission found that halfway
houses are mixing high and low-risk offenders of which research
shows can lead to increased recidivism for the low-risk
offenders that are less criminal than others in the halfway
house, because they can learn to be more criminal. This was
discussed when dealing with drug offenses that in some cases DOC
facilities can serve as opportunities for networking and for
increased criminogenic behaviors. With less mixing of the high
and low-risk offenders this would allow for people to use CRCs
for what they are and allow different categories of people to
utilize different resources.
1:51:00 PM
MS. ABBOTT related that the commission found that CRCs would be
more effective at reducing recidivism if facilities also offered
evidence based treatment for offenders in addition to
supervision. Therefore, as opposed to just having a roof over
their heads and some level of supervision, it would also deal
with underlying causes for which they might be in a CRC. This
recommendation is to improving treatment offerings and focusing
CRC resources on high-risk offenders, similar to other
recommendations discussed today. These forms of treatment could
be cognitive behavioral, substance abuse, after-care, and/or
reentry support services designed to address offenders' specific
needs. Admission criteria would be established for CRCs that
would prioritize placement for people who would benefit most
from the more intensive supervision and treatment, and minimize
mixing high and low-risk offenders. The Department of
Corrections may speak to how each individual CRC across the
state looks, she said.
1:52:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the compliance credits
section, and surmised that what is being proposed is basically a
one-to-one credit for compliance.
MS. ABBOTT responded that it is a one-month to one-month
compliance credit. Therefore, it would have to be a longer
period than day-to-day, but it would be one month on the
frontend of good behavior for one month on the backend.
1:53:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the Petition to Revoke
and asked for examples of technical violations that presently
incur a Petition to Revoke.
MS. ABBOTT stressed that the discussion is not around new
criminal offenses, and that examples could include associating
with other felons or being in a place where alcohol is consumed
if that is a condition of release. Obviously, she said, these
are specific to people on an individual basis, but if a person
has been charged and released and to some extent alcohol was a
part of the crime, more often than not there would be a
limitation of alcohol under the conditions of release and
drinking could be a violation.
1:54:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked [the qualification of] the
correctional officers at the CRC, and he assumed it was 24
hours. He further asked whether these are specialized
correctional officers or someone that applied for a job in a
nice community, and whether there are enough CRCs throughout the
state. He described CRCs as not so much facilities as they are
previous prior residences, such as an assisted living home.
MS. ABBOTT replied that many would argue that there are not
enough CRCs around the state and there could be more, and that
their effectiveness would rise with that investment. She opined
that many CRCs can be former residential establishments with
people often sharing rooms, and it differs wildly on the
community. As to the staff, in many cases DOC contracts out for
CRC operations and DOC would be able to speak to the
qualifications of the staff. She opined that they are different
from those than an actual correctional officer.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN offered concern with whether these people
are well qualified as a correctional officer, and whether their
qualification is not just to lock the door at night and operate
the facility, or do they perform counseling. He related that he
is thinking of an assisted living facility for health reason and
asked whether the state has assisted living for inmates. He
reiterated his concern as to who actually staffs CRCs because it
would be a large factor as to whether they have violations.
MS. ABBOTT advised that much of the recommendation asks that the
CRC staff have expanded qualifications or staff that would be
able to specialize in treatment and counseling, for various risk
assessments. The standards provided here are different than
those currently required, as they are more stringent and
definitely catered more toward rehabilitation than simply
monitoring. As to the specific qualifications of those working
in halfway houses, the Department of Corrections would be able
to speak to that question on an expert level.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked to be reminded when the Department of
Corrections testifies as he would like to follow up on his
questions.
1:59:21 PM
DEAN WILLIAMS, Commissioner Designee, Department of Corrections,
said that individuals from the Department of Corrections are on
line and he would feel more comfortable if they answered
specific questions. Although, he offered that if there are
overarching issues on the bill that Chair LeDoux would like him
to comment on he would be happy to, but he is not prepared to
discuss specific sections.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked Commissioner Williams to discuss anything he
would like the committee to focus in on.
2:00:09 PM
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS explained that he is two months into the
job, has been on the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission two
months and has attended a couple of meetings. Although, he
continued, he followed the work while in Governor Bill Walker's
office and is familiar with the concepts and certainly of the
community supervision piece and what is important about
probation and parole. He noted that there will be some
adjustments for the department in terms of capping probation
violations, as one example. The department is constantly
looking at that and providing meaningful incentives for people
on probation. These are well established concepts that other
states have made progress on and reduced recidivism and crime.
Certainly there will be adjustments and the department is
enthusiastic about the concepts and policies in the bill, and
there will be details to sort out which is why the department is
speaking to the committee. Certainly, he extended, the
department is trying to bring down the inmate population numbers
and that the department is onboard and in full support.
2:01:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that if the bill is adopted it
will require a fairly significant change in the department's
policies, and asked how prepared is the Department of
Corrections to fully embrace these changes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS pointed to a provision in the bill
allowing the department time to adjust, and noted that where
things have not gone well in other states is within the
implementation piece, and having time to adjust to the
reinvestment piece. The department will be in trouble out of
the gate without time to make the adjustments in practice and
policy, and also in not reinvesting the pretrial point and doing
risk assessments. He pointed out that one piece affects the
other if the reinvestment piece is missing, and also the
discussion is having people in the community make sure they
receive services there. He surmised that all of these are
important in terms of the implementation piece. This has been
worked at for a while, technical assistance is coming to the
department in terms of some of the things being discussed, and
money is out there for training and making sure that the
managers and probation supervisors are able to talk to their
probation staff about the changes. He advised that those
conversations have taken place and once the bill passes there is
a lot of work ahead and it is on their radar.
2:03:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said he appreciates the ongoing technical
assistance available as it moves forward. Although, he noted, a
concern present in both the parole and probation revocation
system is that a Petition [to Revoke] comes in and nothing is
resolved for quite some time. The concept here is swift,
certain, and rapid reaction in dealing with folks and said that
possibly somebody that wants to enforce all of their rights may
not get such swift action on the part of the department. He
asked whether the department will actually get past what less
than charitably might be described as a loss of bureaucratic red
tape every time a violation occurs.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS responded that this topic is big for the
department and it realizes that part of the reason DOC's
probation supervision counts have increased is due to the
litigious environment that exists in regard to the Petitions to
Revoke. The goal of the bill is to reduce and eliminate that
substantially. For example, currently, when someone commits a
technical violation it becomes a long process and people are
incarcerated for months. The goal of the bill is to make sure
DOC has people in jail who need to be in jail, and that there is
not a litigious environment over technical violations and other
probation violations unless new crimes are committed. He
described it as a policy shift - it's how to reduce prison
counts and make the community safer for all at the same time.
It is a learning curve for the state, he noted, but other states
have done it, he has seen the successes they have had, and he is
hopeful.
2:06:02 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to page 82, [Sec. 135. AS 33.20.020(c)],
page 82 [lines 1-4], which read:
(c) A prisoner may not be awarded a good time
deduction under (a) of this section for any period
spent in a treatment program or [,] in a private
residence. A prisoner may be awarded a good time
deduction under (a) of this section for any period
spent [, OR] while under electronic monitoring.
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that if this is pretrial the person can
receive good time for time spent in a treatment center, but if
it is post-conviction the person cannot receive good time for
time spent in a residential treatment center.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS deferred to Director Carrie Belden, and
said that the issue here is the notion that a more restrictive
environment earns the person good time. He opined that this law
has been in place for a long time wherein a person does not
receive good time credit for being in a treatment program or in
a private residence, and it was a policy call. Due to the
direction the state is headed, some may question why the state
wouldn't give credit for someone in a treatment program, whether
pretrial or post-conviction.
CHAIR LEDOUX said she is questioning that right now because if
her reading of it is correct, why we ...
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS opined that it is a policy call and is
based upon the restriction of the environment. In other words,
the concept was, right or wrong, that if a person is more
restricted the state would not provide credit, for example,
someone restricted to their home. He explained that it was a
policy call the state came to over the course of many years
about what the state would provide good time credit for. The
provision underlined allows good time under this section which
is an enhancement part of the model. He said that Chair LeDoux
is pointing out the fact that the state is not allowing it for
some other elements, especially a treatment program that might
be beneficial, and because someone is actually complying and
helping themselves.
2:08:33 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX argued that if they go to a treatment program and
at the same time are under electronic monitoring or in a private
residence and under electronic monitoring then the state would
give them good time. But, if they don't have the electronic
monitoring, if they haven't been convicted they are given good
time, but if they have been convicted they don't get good time
or credit.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS responded that he is wading in deep water
here and he ...
CHAIR LEDOUX suggested that Ms. Belden answer the question.
2:09:23 PM
CARRIE BELDEN, Director, Division of Probation and Parole,
Department of Corrections, advised that the question is more of
a technical question that they would have to double-check and
research to determine whether or not this would allow for a
pretrial or post-sentence. She opined that Chair LeDoux is
correct in her explanation that in order to receive good time,
the person must be on electronic monitoring.
2:09:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that the Department of
Corrections has beds in different treatment programs and they
receive time credit for treatment. He stated that it is not
treatment in prison but people are in places such as Clitheroe
Center, Akeela House or Nugent's Ranch that have the DOC beds.
He opined that people were routinely receiving jail time credit
for that and asked whether that is no longer the case.
MS. BELDEN responded that they do receive credit under Nygren
[v. State, 658 P.2d 141 (1983)] for that treatment and when they
return to court the judge orders that credit.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN advised he is not referring to Nygren
because Nygren is typically pre-sentence and the person is
released to a program while they are awaiting trial or awaiting
plea. He pointed out that he is asking about the convicted
person ordered to go to jail for five years, and then the
Department of Corrections (DOC) decides the person needs alcohol
treatment. He opined that routinely DOC would send people out
to inpatient alcohol programs and they would receive credit
toward their prison sentence. He offered that if Ms. Belden
does not know the answer the committee needs to know the answer,
and said that he did not know how frequently that happened, but
it happened periodically.
2:11:40 PM
MS. BELDEN agreed that the Department of Corrections would send
that person on a furlough and they could do their in-custody
time while at a treatment facility.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether that is still happening
today.
MS. BELDEN said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN related that he was now even more confused
about AS 33.20.010(c) at page 82, lines 1-4, which appears to
suggest that a prisoner could not be given good time credit for
that time spent in a treatment program. He noted the
inconsistency with the whole idea of trying to get treatment for
folks so they don't go out and drink and reoffend.
MS. BELDEN asked that she be allowed to speak with the time
accountant as to exactly how this would affect [prisoners]. She
noted that it gets into complicated time accounting of what DOC
would give credit for and what it wouldn't as to placement, as
well as the time as to when it is ordered and when it is not.
She stated she would like to research this issue and get back to
the committee.
2:12:53 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX said the committee would appreciate that, although
she received a note that this section, at least this sentence,
which Representative Claman and she have difficulties with,
appears to be in the current law. She asked whether or not that
is actually the practice in the current law or whether it is
just there.
CHAIR LEDOUX remarked that she would appreciate [Ms. Belden's
research] and noted that the Department of Law (DOL) is here and
possibly the committee can hear a little bit about that because
it is baffling.
MS. BELDEN, in response to Chair LeDoux's question of whether
she would discuss Recommendations 14, 16, and 18, said that she
would just mimic what Commissioner Williams said in that they
are continuing to go through the bill to find ways to implement
and problem solve, work with other department, and the bill
sponsor, to find ways to implement these provisions.
2:14:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered that he has never seen a Parole
Board operate, he pointed out that the parole system is being
expanded, and acknowledged that the department has the huge task
ahead to adjust the culture within the parole system. For
example, he related, it could be a significant adjustment for a
parole officer to switch from a punishment system to a rewards
system. He opined that much training would be involved with
technical assistance, and asked for a broad idea of what kind of
changes Commissioner Williams anticipates taking place in the
parole system in Alaska.
2:15:32 PM
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS agreed that Representative Keller is
exactly correct with regard to the issue of workload increasing
discretionary parole and what the bill is attempting to do.
Jeff Edwards, Executive Director of the Parole Board, contacted
the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) and training is
already set up, and to the complete credit of Mr. Edwards the
department recognizes that parole must be more than a "gotcha"
effort because it has to be an effort to try to successfully
move people out, to simplify [the process]. Commissioner
Williams noted that Mr. Edwards previously testified about this
this issue and that he is right on, and is the right person
leading the effort. There will be adjustments, but [the
department] is headed in the right [direction]. There will be
training, there is an expanse and workload issue and, he stated,
he feels confident in this area.
2:17:22 PM
ALYSA WOODEN, Program Coordinator, Alcohol Safety Action
Program, Division of Behavioral Health, Department of Health &
Social Services, said she is available to answer questions.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked how much emphasis is spent on the Alaska
Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP) with respect to minor in
possession.
MS. WOODEN said that she would provide information to the
committee from statistics pulled by the program coordinator for
ASAP.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked exactly what ASAP does with respect to minor
in possession.
MS. WOODEN responded that the ASAP office acts as a link between
the court system and behavioral treatment programs. When an
individual is referred to the ASAP program they go through a
classification process with "informal probation officers."
Those probation officers will help them go through a
classification chart and then decide from that whether or not
they need a clinical evaluation for further treatment. From
that, she said, the ASAP probation officer will help coordinate
that information with the behavioral treatment provider and get
that through the courts.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether all teen-agers found to have violated
minor in possession receive some sort of behavioral health
treatment, how does it work exactly.
MS. WOODEN opined that on the juvenile side, if a juvenile is
referred to the ASAP program, the probation officer will still
go through the classification chart, so it depends upon where
they rank in that. It is divided into three categories, she
explained, as to whether or not someone is a non-problem drinker
or someone utilizes controlled substances. In the event they
are in the pending category means that it is not quite clear
given their background whether or not they may need treatment
versus education or whether or not they actually are, through
their background, in need of a clinical evaluation. Not
everyone referred through will necessarily receive treatment as
it depends upon where they rank in that classification chart.
MS. WOODEN, in response to Chair LeDoux, advised that ASAP
stands for the Alcohol Safety Action Program.
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that the ASAP people are coordinators and
refer people to where they determine is necessary.
MS. WOODEN replied yes, they do coordinate and help to do agency
reports and status reports for the treatment center, they also
help with DMV signoffs, as well as noncompliance notification.
If someone is not in compliance with their treatment ASAP will
make sure the court receives that information, she said.
2:21:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined that when ASAP is referred by the
courts, it actually makes an initial screening determination
about whether someone should be evaluated for treatment or not.
Therefore, at some level they are similar to what the medical
community refers to as a gatekeeper and they perform some
initial gatekeeper function before someone is ever evaluated by
a treatment professional. He asked whether that is still part
of what they do in the initial stage.
MS. WOODEN answered in the affirmative, and reiterated that
there is an initial classification chart the probation officer
goes through before deciding whether the person necessarily
needs clinical evaluation. However, she explained, because
there is the pending level or the problem level, that
participant would still go for a clinical evaluation just to
determine if it was treatment versus education.
2:22:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that some people would just see
the ASAP person, and the ASAP person would say that the person
doesn't need any more and send them on their way, and others
would be referred for further evaluation by a second party.
MS. WOODEN said that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that under the recommendation
there would be increased funding for ASAP but actually a
reduction in the number of people that are referred to ASAP for
evaluation. He asked why limit the number of people eligible to
go through the ASAP process.
MS. WOODEN responded that she had been present at some of the
commission's meetings as a spectator and she could not speak on
behalf of the commissioners. She opined that the recommendation
would allow ASAP to focus on a smaller subset and perhaps
provide increased supervision.
2:23:11 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether it is ASAP itself that doesn't send
people to seek further treatment, and is it ASAP itself that
gives education when it comes to the minor in possession.
MS. WOODEN opined that ASAP works with vendors for the
alcohol/drug information school and the victims' impact panel.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked her to explain the victims' impact panel.
MS. WOODEN further opined that it is a panel of individuals
specifically utilized to talk about sentences involving
vehicles, and it discusses personal experiences, and experiences
they have witnessed of victims being impacted by alcohol or
controlled substance related issues.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether this is part of the education
program.
MS. WOODEN responded in the affirmative.
2:24:20 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned why a minor in possession would be
dealing with the victims' impact panel if the minor isn't
driving a car or other motorized vehicle.
MS. WOODEN clarified that she was specifically referring to the
adult ASAP, and not juvenile offenders.
CHAIR LEDOUX restated her question and said she would like to
know the procedure for a minor in possession that has nothing to
do with driving a car.
MS. WOODEN advised she is more familiar with the ASAP adult
probation system and will provide the requested information to
the committee.
CHAIR LEDOUX listed the people available for general questions.
2:27:32 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX extended that she would like someone to explain how
this subsection works with respect to good time deductions,
[Sec. 135. AS 33.20.010(c), page 82, lines 1-4] subsection (c),
which read:
(c) A prisoner may not be awarded a good time
deduction under (a) of this section for any period
spent in a treatment program or [,] in a private
residence. A prisoner may be awarded a good time
deduction under (a) of this section for any period
spent [, OR] while under electronic monitoring.
2:28:02 PM
TRACEY WOLLENBERG, Deputy Director, Appellate Division, Central
Office, Public Defender Agency (PDA), Department of
Administration (DOA), answered that she would do her best to
explain what is often a difficult area of time accounting, and
that DOC will correct her if she is incorrect. She opined that
Sec. 135, on page 82, applies to people who have been convicted
and sentenced. Under current law, which the legislature amended
in 2007, a person is not entitled to good time credit for time
spent in a treatment facility in a private residence or while
under electronic monitoring. In the event a person is
furloughed to a treatment program, she opined, that person would
still receive the day-for-day credit but this section would
preclude good time credit. She said it appears that DOC will
confirm that this is in fact how it is implemented.
2:29:12 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that under current law, a person does not
receive good time credit for time spent in a treatment program
in a private residence. Therefore, if a person is in a private
residence, which she assumed would mean the person's own
residence, as opposed to a halfway house.
MS. WOLLENBERG responded that currently the statute precludes
good time credit for time spent in a treatment program, or a
private residence, or on electronic monitoring. In the event a
person is in a residential treatment program on furlough after
being sentenced, this section precludes the award of good time
credit while at that residential treatment facility. She added
that it also precludes the award of good time credit when on DOC
electronic monitoring. The proposal would be to allow for good
time credit for people who are on DOC electronic monitoring, and
under that rationale it may make sense to allow good time credit
for people who are furloughed to a treatment facility. She
opined that that is the way it happened before 2007, but she
could be corrected.
2:30:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that a person can receive credit
for time spent in a treatment facility or at home on electronic
monitoring, but the person does not receive the one-third off
good time credit for that time. The person sitting in jail has
the choice of going home on electronic monitoring and for every
two months they serve in jail they have to serve three months at
home. They can still get the jail time credit and do not
receive the statutory good time deduction.
MS. WOLLENBERG agreed that that is her understanding of the
statute, although, she is unsure how a person would receive
credit for time spent in a private residence unless DOC made a
determination to furlough the person there. In the event a
person is furloughed to a treatment program or released on DOC
electronic monitoring they receive day-for-day credit but, she
opined, what Ms. Abbott was referencing is that some people
apparently are discouraged from going on electronic monitoring
due to the lack of good time availability.
2:31:48 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether anything a person received before
sentencing would not be good time credit, it would just be day-
to-day credit.
MS. WOLLENBERG replied correct, that is under Title 12 in that a
person can apply to the court for day-for-day credit for time
spent in a treatment facility or on electronic monitoring, and
that is the provision discussed last week with regard to the 120
day cap.
2:32:18 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether, under this bill, in addition to the
day-to-day credit a person would be awarded their good time
deduction for time spent while under electronic monitoring.
MS. WOLLENBERG advised that is her understanding of the
provision.
CHAIR LEDOUX continued that if the person was on electronic
monitoring in a treatment center they wouldn't be awarded good
time and simply awarded day-to-day credit.
MS. WOLLENBERG responded that is correct as currently drafted.
She offered that certainly the legislature could provide a
similar good time provision for treatment facilities.
2:33:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER commented that there was concern during a
previous hearing regarding the complexity of it. He asked
whether anyone mentioned, or the committee should be looking at
this section while it is open and simplifying the whole system,
and whether from her perspective there would be a benefit.
MS. WOLLENBERG asked whether he was speaking with regard to
pretrial versus post-sentencing, and making them standardized.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered the good time, the earned time,
"and all that." He asked whether it is all working
appropriately, and if so, the problem then is just understanding
it by possibly having a side-by-side chart. He questioned
whether there are flaws in the whole credit system the committee
needs to address.
MS. WOLLENBERG opined that awarding good time for electronic
monitoring and potentially for treatment incentivizes people to
participate in those programs. Although, she further opined,
when it is provided in one area and not in the other area it
incentivizes one and dis-incentivizes the other and thereby
creates disparities between the award of credit. The commission
recommended providing good time credit for time spent on
electronic monitoring and the committee could consider providing
good time credit for time spent in a residential treatment
facility. She explained that these are all post-sentencing
options, and to be consistent the pretrial credit is just day-
for-day. She reminded the committee that Mr. Steiner testified
in opposition to the 120 day cap, and those people are not
getting good time credit, just day-for-day credit.
2:35:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the post-sentence scenario and
surmised that subsection (c) was added in 2007, and asked
whether she has any idea of the intent of the legislature other
than they just didn't want to give the credit, and why they
thought this was a problem that needed fixing.
MS. WOLLENBERG recalled that it had been amended in 2007, and
she could not remember off hand what the rationale was, but
would be happy to review the legislative history.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether anyone else may have a
historical perspective from 2007 dealing with these policies
that can comment. He said he would be interested to know the
legislative history because it strikes him as curious as to what
the problem was with letting people earn good time while they
were -- although, maybe if they were home alone, not on
electronic monitoring, and not doing treatment he could
understand.
2:36:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT advised that she was legislative staff
during the "Blakely Bill," and there was a movement toward more
imprisonment, more of a tough on crime bill. Crimes were
happening, such that a juvenile committed murder, was tried as a
juvenile and received time served while he was in the McLaughlin
Youth Center, and it was felt to be unjust that the defendant
lessened his sentence by all these things. She opined that it
was a shift in how the state treated criminals and the credits
they received, and now there is data driven research showing
that what the state was doing in the past really isn't
effective, and not to the benefit of public safety as a whole.
CHAIR LEDOUX commented that it is like the old adage in law,
"Hard cases sometimes make bad law." She offered that she is
supportive of the bill, and yet read the newspaper and noticed
that a friend of Representative Claman was killed by a young
woman texting.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN interjected that she wasn't texting, that
was a different case, but he knows the case Chair LeDoux is
discussing.
CHAIR LEDOUX continued that the sentence was basically reduced
to almost nothing, and those are the policy issues the
legislature must consider here. She expressed that it is not
just theory, it has real ramifications.
CHAIR LEDOUX thanked Ms. Schroeder for explaining the difficult
section as it was very helpful.
2:39:40 PM
LAURA BROOKS, Health Care Administrator, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Corrections, advised that as the
health care administrator she oversees the department's medical
health care as well as rehabilitative programs including mental
health, substance abuse, and sex offender treatment. She opined
that one of the primary question that came up was related to
polygraphing and the validity of polygraphing, and asked whether
that is the direction the committee would like her to go.
CHAIR LEDOUX offered that she does not recall a question
regarding polygraphing, but Representative Lynn would like an
explanation of what the sex offender treatment programs do.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN commented that he did not know that
polygraphing was acceptable in court.
2:41:08 PM
MS. BROOKS advised that the Alaska Department of Corrections
(DOC) uses the "Containment Model" sex offender management tool
that includes two parts, cognitive behavioral therapy and
polygraph testing. She explained there is institutional sex
offender programming treatment and community sex offender
treatment. Polygraphs are an integral part because initially it
is used to obtain a sex history so they can identify victim
pools, patterns, and a whole host of issues related to their
crime that then help therapists to focus treatment. Once the
individuals are in treatment the programs are very focused, such
as highest risk offenders with the highest propensity for
violence which is located at the Lemon Creek Correction Center.
She described it as a therapeutic community which is a
residential program, they meet regularly for groups, individual
therapy, and are given regular feedback throughout the day.
MS. BROOKS said another sex offender management program was
located in the Palmer [Correctional Center] and is temporarily
suspended because the department lost its provider but the
program should be up and running again hopefully by the end of
this month. It is not a therapeutic community, such as Lemon
Creek Correctional Center, she explained, and is more of an
outpatient setting where people meet with the treatment provider
for group therapy and individual therapy.
2:43:13 PM
MS. BROOKS offered that the Yukon-Kuskokwim Correctional Center
holds the highest concentration of sex offenders anywhere in the
country and this program is specifically for Alaska Native men
from the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta area, and interpreters are used
for the men who primarily speak Yupik. Groups are run several
times a week, intensive homework is included, and this program
also has restorative justice aspects such as, subsistence
activities for the local battered women's shelter wherein some
of the program participants collect firewood, provide
maintenance services, and so forth. The program uses culturally
specific materials in order to better connect with that group
and elders in the community are used as mentors and adjunct
treatment providers to address the needs of that specialize
population.
MS. BROOKS advised that the Hiland Mountain Correctional Center
sex offender program is for women which is a small program
because female sex offenders are fairly rare, and it is an 18-24
month program. Although the capacity for that program is 12
individuals, usually there are three to five offenders at a
time. She explained that their sex offender programming is
quite different from the program for men, even though it
includes group and individual therapy, much of their treatment
also focuses on their past victimization.
MS. BROOKS advised that in addition to those institutional
programs, the department has the community sex offender program
which is an outpatient model for people on probation and parole.
These offenders are connected with specially trained contract
therapists and they meet for group and individual therapy, and
participate in polygraphing during the time they are on
probation. She described that as a quick overview of the
department's sex offender treatment programs.
2:45:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN referred to the curriculum and asked whether
it is just a discussion group, or whether there is actually a
curriculum in going through the program.
MS. BROOKS responded that there are a number of different areas
they focus on with sex offenders in that they delve down into
some of their deviant thoughts, behaviors, and fantasies, in
addition to meeting their other criminogenic needs because this
population is very unique in their thinking patterns.
Therefore, a lot of work is performed on their criminal
thinking. It is necessary to be very careful during group
therapy because offenders are not allowed to tell "war stories"
because in that kind of setting many of those group participants
enjoy hearing what others have done. She offered that it is a
directed therapy process that keeps them focused on trying to
correct some of the deviant thoughts and behaviors, and trying
to address them as they move through their assault cycle. The
curriculum used in the Lemon Creek Correctional Center is a
quite focused group setting because it is easy for them to get
astray and tell the stories. She added that the program focuses
on corrective action rather than repeating what has already been
done.
2:47:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN offered that everyone has thoughts but not
everyone acts on their thoughts, and he asked how that is
addressed.
MS. BROOKS responded that he was absolutely correct that
everyone does have thoughts, but these thought patterns are
exceptionally aberrant and many times the therapist may have
individuals journal some of those thoughts and then in
individual therapy address those kinds of issues. The
department works on helping them recognize prosocial behaviors,
what is appropriate in certain situations, what is not, and they
work on having them recognize what a healthy relationship looks
like versus what they are used to seeing in many of their
relationships. She offered that it is a slow process but the
work is intended to change their thinking patterns, and one of
the reasons polygraph is critical is because the polygraph
examiner asks specific questions such as, have you had any
deviant thoughts about children in the last month, if the answer
is yes, that then becomes a specific treatment focus for the
individual in therapy.
2:49:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked how the department measures success
rates on something like that, whether these people are basically
fixable, is success measured by them not coming back to prison,
and he stressed that these [crimes] are far beyond burglary,
larceny, and assault. He asked whether it is fixable behavior
such as alcoholism or drug addiction, and extended that when
there is deviant behavior addiction many times with children can
it be fixed.
MS. BROOKS answered that that is the question and it is why the
containment model is used because the department measures
success by the recidivism rate, and the national recidivism rate
for sex offenders is actually about five percent. She said, "In
Alaska, for our two cohorts that we've recently measured, it's
around three percent." She continued that a large part of that
success is due to the polygraph which is crucial in acting as a
huge deterrent for those who know they are going to be
administered a polygraph test, and it is exceptionally difficult
to fake a polygraph. Polygraphs are used to assist in
identifying victim pools so the program can include requirements
such as, who do you need to avoid, is it adult women, is it
males, is it young males, and all of the information is written
into their probation conditions. Again, she advised, it brings
to the treatment team's attention abhorrent thoughts and
behaviors early in the assault cycle in order to take corrective
action before the behavior escalates and contact is actually
made. The team can put additional safeguards into place such
as, electronic monitoring, curfews, surveillance, monitoring
logs, which are the types of things that are all part of the
containment model. She said she could not answer whether they
change these individuals for life, although the containment
model helps the department ensure that these individuals are
caught early on in their behavior before new victims are
affected.
2:52:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT commented that the fact that the
offenders are receiving treatment, and that they will be let out
of prison at some point because few sex offenders have a life
sentence unless they've committed something in addition to the
sex offense. She referred to the conversation of "if it works,"
and noted that the state is letting out sex offenders right now
that have served their time or are on probation and parole, and
have never gone through this treatment due to the current wait
list for treatment, including substance abuse. It should be
recognized that, hopefully, this data will prove that going
through intense treatment while in prison keeps them from
reoffending out of prison. There should be a conversation
regarding offenders not receiving treatment in prison, being
released, sitting on a wait list for this treatment, and the
likelihood of recidivism for those groups. The hard truth, she
expressed is that the offenders pay for their crime, do their
time, and then are released into society, and she would rather
the offenders receive some type of treatment while in prison
rather than the current sex offenders receiving zero treatment.
2:54:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the epidemic of sexual
assault on college campuses where there is concern that only one
out of every twenty, or whatever, is actually reported or
prosecuted. The point being that there are statistics of
identified sexual assaults, and then there are actual sex
assaults and the two statistics are different. He said, "I just
wanted to confirm that when we're talking about recidivism
statistics for sexual assault, 3 percent, 5 percent, whatever,
we're talking about, I'm assuming we're talking about, I'd like
that assumption confirmed, people who are convicted for another
sexual related offense later. And, I guess my sort of secondary
question is, if that assumption is accurate, is there data that
these treatment programs reduce actual deviant sexual behavior,
not just deviant sexual behavior that happens to be prosecuted
also."
2:55:27 PM
MS. BROOKS referred to the question regarding the difference
between those identified sexual assaults and actual sexual
assaults, and responded that Representative Kreiss-Tomkins is
correct in that the recidivism rate is based upon conviction.
She advised that when it comes to the polygraph tests and
addressing offender's sex history, they have found an
extraordinarily high number of convicted people identifying one
or two victims in their court case wherein nothing else had ever
come to the surface. The polygraph tests have revealed that
sometimes the offender is speaking of 10 or 15 victims, and
sometimes much higher than that. The polygraph helps the team
recognize just how vast their victimology is, even though they
may have only been convicted in one or two cases. She explained
that the information allows therapists to refocus treatment and
also perhaps change their supervision if they are out in the
community. She referred to Representative Millett's comment
regarding those who do not receive treatment in custody, and
agreed that there are long wait lists for these programs. When
the individual is released to the community, whether or not they
have received treatment, they are referred to treatment
providers in the community, and they are statutorily required to
be polygraphed. She described that another crucial part of the
containment model is regardless of what kind of treatment they
may already have received, they are still required to
participate and still required to submit to polygraph testing.
2:57:30 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX related that she is still waiting for the
statistics with respect to the pedophilia and whether or not
these recidivism statistics are actually applicable to those
very worst cases with a grown man raping a one- or two-year old.
MS. BROOKS answered that they do not break out the sexual
recidivism rates based on any particular sexual crime being
higher than the other, even though someone might be at much
greater risk or have a higher propensity for violence. She
offered to double-check and determine whether it is broken out
separately, and whether it is possible within the department's
system.
CHAIR LEDOUX stressed that while Ms. Brooks may not rank them as
any different, "I sure as heck rank them as different and I
suspect that most of the public ranks them as quite different."
Research was conducted years ago and it was determined that
people who do things like that can't be fixed, period, c'est
fini. Currently, the committee is receiving other research that
leaves her in a quandary because she is really trying to keep an
open mind about this, but those scenarios and the idea that
somebody is going to be spending any less time in jail because
they've gone through ... She then offered Ms. Brooks the
scenario of someone who raped a two-year old, and asked what his
education would be that would stop that kind of behavior so that
he doesn't rape someone else of that age. She further asked
whether there would be shock treatment or what.
2:59:53 PM
MS. BROOKS apologized if she wasn't clear and responded that the
department has no way of knowing whether these individuals are
being fixed, and that Chair LeDoux is absolutely correct. The
department's absolute best shot at protecting the public is
providing the containment model to make sure that when they are
back in the community that the department knows what the
individual is doing, and what the individual is thinking about
doing, so the department can increase the supervision because
the individual will be released. She described this as one of
the reasons why, in these bills, if the legislature is
considering shortening the amount of probation time for sex
offenders, the legislature needs to put a lot of thought into
that. The issue is that if the department is not able to have
enough programs within the institutions to treat them and they
are released untreated, the offender's time on probation is
shorter which means the department will have even less time than
it already does to work with the individual. She stressed that
she is not able to say that the department is able to fix them.
Although, she pointed out, if the department has any opportunity
to contain them, it would seem as though [the legislature] would
want to give [the department] the best shot at protecting
communities by making sure the individuals are in that
containment model as long as possible.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether containment model means jail.
MS. BROOKS replied no. The containment model is the cognitive
behavioral treatment in conjunction with the polygraph and the
majority of the states are using it in an effort to keep
recidivism at its lowest possible rate for this population, she
explained.
3:01:43 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to that population and said wouldn't a
better containment model mean the traditional containment model
of lock them up and throw away the keys, since Ms. Brooks has
related that the department doesn't know whether they are going
to recidivate or not.
MS. BROOKS pointed out that it is not up to the department to
decide because it is up to sentencing. She explained that when
these individuals are released to the community, the best chance
the state has at keeping those re-offense rates low is with the
treatment and the polygraph combined, which research has shown
is the best shot. Although, she agreed she is not familiar with
anything that indicates they are fixed, that they will never
ever do this again. Given what the department has, this has
been the most successful, she remarked.
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that the question she posed wasn't a
fair question because the legislature makes policy and makes
that decision, not the department.
[SB 205 was held over.]
3:03:18 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:03 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Community Supervision Presentation 3.21.16.pdf |
HJUD 3/21/2016 12:30:00 PM |
HB 205 |
| HB 205 - Backup Documents - ACJC Recommendation RE Felony Property Theft Threshold.pdf |
HJUD 3/21/2016 12:30:00 PM |
HB 205 |